Thursday, April 25, 2013

And I'm MEETING This Dude Next Week!

Kevin has an uber-post up. You owe it to yourself to read this.

Kevin shines the light of truth on the tenets of the gun control movement. Naturally, they're scurrying like roaches when the kitchen light is turned on, but it's a great post just chock full of silly facts that the gun haters will ignore. It's a great reference to toss in when in a debate with one of the gun control True Believers - if for nothing else as a literary Rorschach test to see what they view in the post. Some will ignore it outright; some, like the targeted Markadelphia, will point to its length as some sort of detriment, as though all the hard work that Kevin put into the post was just to prove an erroneous position.

I know, I know, he should have just run a Google search and called it a day...

We don't argue to convince people that already believe in gun control. If they were capable of critical thought, they'd have abandoned gun control as the sham that it is long ago. Believing that more laws are the answer to criminals breaking laws you passed to stop criminals from breaking laws is the textbook definition of insanity, and intellectually honest folks can recognize the problem immediately. The people we're arguing to convince are the fence-sitters, the dabblers, the folks that haven't really thought much about it either way. The gun control people have raw emotion on their side - honestly, 20 dead first graders is a damn powerful argument, let's not kid ourselves. They are utterly shameless about standing in the blood of the innocent to get what they want - even when they themselves admit that it wouldn't have stopped the shooting in the first place.

I mean, honestly. They proposed "universal background checks" as the solution to a shooting where someone murdered someone for their legally-acquired and legally-owned firearms for which background checks were performed. On what planet does this make any sense? We need to pass a law requiring comprehensive background checks for every transfer (even temporary ones like loaning a gun to a friend to go hunting or letting someone try your new Blastomatic out at the range) so that in the future, deranged psychopaths won't shoot their mothers in the face and steal their guns? To quote the kids, LOLWUT?

Quite frankly, raw emotion is all the gun control movement has. They can't - won't - use the racism card, as gun control has its roots firmly planted in the Jim Crow laws of post Civil War America. They can't - won't - use the sexism card, as quite frankly it's hard to argue that a firearm isn't the most effective way for a 100 pound woman to fend off an attack from a 225 pound man. Every single thing they have predicted with regards to gun control has been wrong: No blood in the streets with liberalized conceal carry; no one has been killed in drive-by bayonettings since the expiration of the Assault Weapons ban; they have been proven wrong repeatedly over the past 20 years all they can do now is wait for the next tragedy.

I'd have a lot more respect for the movement if more of them would admit to what they truly want, as Senator Feinstein has: Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in.

That is all.


Ancient Woodsman said...

I'm wondering - based on the whining from Markadelphia that there are "too many" gun deaths (along with the similar whining by equally whiny liberals who want to restrict or ban guns that there are "too many" guns) - what is their ideal number of 'gun deaths', or ideal number of guns?

Surely, foks who have arrived at the idea that a certain number is "too many" should have, somewhere in their consciousness, developed a level of "just enough". How can one measure "too many" without having thought out what an acceptable number is?

If they want to ban all magazines over ten rounds, does that mean that they are o.k with ten people being shot, but not eleven? What in their minds makes those first ten folks expendable? Are liberals of New York so much more elightened that they think that those potential victims numbered between 8 and 10 are extra-special (or just as special as potential victims numbering eleven or more in Massachusetts, etc.), but those numbering seven or less can be sacrificed? How is it these folks sleep at night knowing that they are wiling to sacrifice a specific number of souls to their legal smuggness?

At some point, the "too many" crowd is going to have to admit that their argument of "too many" is either disingenuous (which it is, but they won't admit that) or that in fact there is some number of guns and/or deaths that they are perfectly comfortable with and would be more than happy to accept. I.E., if the current numbers are "too many", if their ideal number is reached, will they stop trying to ban guns, or stop whining about "gun deaths"? Is it a fixed number, or does it vary in certain circumstances? What are those circumstances?

I doubt that they will ever explain. They say "too many" because they are crafty enough to know that they don't want to get caught arguing to ban all guns, or even get caught arguing that all "gun deaths" (including justifiable, as in self defense or even hunting or use by law enforcement) are in their mind bad and therefore unacceptable.

I submit that they use the phrase
"too many" not because they actually have thought these things out and do indeed have some acceptable number for loss of life or ownership of tools, but instead they say "too many" because their real number is zero.

Kevin said...

Thanks for the link, Jay. Looking forward to meeting you, finally!

Daniel in Brookline said...

Ancient Woodsman:

I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of a bit more doubt than that.

I suspect that, when a hoplophobe argues for ten-round magazines, they are not thinking that the first ten shots are okay. Rather, they understand the necessity of compromise with the other side, and are willing to settle for SOME limitation. (Or, if you prefer, they understand in some fashion that banning guns outright is politically unacceptable for some reason.)

That's not to say that their intentions are benign. I'm sure that the ultimate goal, for those who work at such things, is to restrict magazines to ten rounds, then to five, then to two, and so on. We saw this in the recent attempt at an assault-weapons ban; it continued the insanity of banning guns for their cosmetic features, and added more cosmetic features so as to prohibit ever more guns. Had it passed, you can bet that some subsequent bill would have found some other feature (say, triggers) to ban.

In other words, yes, their logic is faulty... but I don't think what you cited is the best example of it.

Crotalus said...

I wish they'd go for a full gun ban too. Then they can reap the civil war for which they evidently so fervently wish.

Opinionated Grump (Rich in NC) said...

"The gun control people have raw emotion on their side - honestly, 20 dead first graders is a damn powerful argument, let's not kid ourselves"

What about the six adults? How about the principal who died headed towards the vca? If she had a weapon (besides herself) the entire situation would have concluded with many fewer deaths and injuries.

Ed said...

Who claims that compromise is necessary? Just say "No!", and be done with it.